1

TRIBAL COURTS

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

FOR BUSH JUSTICE IN ALASKA

"…..Same thing with tribal court. That came in long before white people. The

court brought everything out in the open, before the people. They talked to

the person making trouble right in front of him. They just talk. As peaceful as

they can. The Indian way is to have respect for one another.” Chief Peter John

1900 - 2003

Traditional Chief, Minto Alaska

© Lisa Jaeger

Tanana Chiefs Conference

lisa.jaeger@tananachiefs.org

Draft of Nov. 20, 2009

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Traditional Tribal Justice Systems in Alaska ............................................................................... 3

Russian Occupation and U.S. Purchase ...................................................................................... 4

Early Relationship between Alaska Tribes and the Federal Government ................................. 5

Turn of the 20th Century ................................................................................................................. 7

1950s : Termination Era ............................................................................................................... 12

1960s : Civil Rights Era ................................................................................................................ 14

1970s : Self-Determination ........................................................................................................... 16

1980s : Challenges and Accomplishments ................................................................................ 19

1990s : Tribal Recognition ........................................................................................................... 21

2000s : Refining Tribal Jurisdiction ............................................................................................ 27

Current Alaska Tribal Courts ....................................................................................................... 30

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 32

2

Introduction

Modern tribal courts in Alaska may be best understood by viewing the long

history of events, changing federal and state policies, and legal battles that have

taken place over the years leading us to the present day. Long before contact

with non-Native people, traditional systems were well established for maintaining

order in tribal communities. Conflicts and disease brought first by the Russians,

then by gold seekers, decimated Native populations in much of Alaska, affecting

Native communities and traditional systems beyond the imagination. Although

changes to tribal justice occurred with the introduction of a federal justice system

during Alaska territorial days, organized tribal councils played an important role

in early bush justice. The Alaska Statehood Act (1959) instituted a system of

state magistrates in rural Alaska, replacing the role of the tribal councils and

village tribunals to some extent. Finally, the settlement of Alaska Native Claims

in 1971 left questions about tribal status and jurisdiction, which continue to be

litigated in state and federal courts today.

Through all the surrounding conflicts and confusion, Alaska tribes have managed

to survive, and even flourish. Tribes have established, and continue to develop

tribal courts to help meet bush justice needs. This is partly due to a lack of

adequate state resources to address justice problems in rural Alaska, but also

due to the tribes themselves believing that solutions have to come from within

their own communities. Today the majority of Alaska tribes handle some level of

tribal court cases, primarily attempting to address tremendous problems related

to child mistreatment and neglect, alcohol and substance abuse, and domestic

violence. They do this with little or no funding, and with varying amounts of

cooperation with state agencies. After a lengthy study ending in 2006, the Alaska

Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission reported, “There is no doubt

that the reduction in state-tribal conflict over jurisdictional issues, and increased

cooperation, coordination, and collaboration between State and tribal courts and

3

agencies, would greatly improve life in rural Alaska and better serve all

Alaskans.”

Traditional Justice Systems and Practices

Before contact first with the Russians, then with outsiders seeking gold and natural

resources from other parts of the world, Alaska Native people were living under a

wide range of self-governing systems for thousands of years. Family lines were

strong, and basically organized through clans, banding together in various cultural

groups, traveling within distinct areas of land and sea within which they harvested

subsistence resources. The extreme arctic environment demanded respect and

working together was the only way the people could survive.

Social order was maintained for hundreds of generations through traditional

customs, self and family discipline, and strong spiritual beliefs and values such as

the Yupik Yuuyaraq (the way of the human being), and Athabascan Animal Songs,

(laws by which Athabascans lived by). The people had close daily interaction with

the natural universe which had a profound influence on cultural ways of being and

keeping order. Spirituality entered into nearly every aspect of daily life.

The way disputes were resolved varied between bands and cultural groups. In

some areas authority for dispute resolution and mediation rested with the first male

head of a nuclear or extended family, and beyond that the leader or headman of a

collection of related families. Justice was applied by decisions of chiefs, clan

leaders, spiritual leaders, whaling captains, and Elders. Some groups had

elaborate systems of restitution and retribution; others were less structured. Minor

offenses were dealt with by the family or clans, or not dealt with at all. In some

areas, leaders formed council decision-making bodies or advisory assemblies to

traditional chiefs.

4

Justice involved restitution, reprimanding, revenge, shaming, and in extreme

cases, banishment of a person or war with another band. Banishment was an

extreme punishment, as not having other humans to protect and help you basically

made it a death sentence. Justice was often dispensed quickly, but in some

systems elaborate potlatches and other rituals took place over a lengthy time

period to resolve disputes and mend relationships.

Russian Occupation and U.S. Purchase

Traditional Alaska Native justice systems began to be disrupted with the coming of

Russian explorers. Russia laid claim to Alaska beginning in the 1770s through the

purchase of Alaska in 1867, mainly occupying the coastal areas with a primary

interest in exploitation of furs. The Aleut people were the first Alaska Natives to be

affected by being forced into slavery to hunt fur-bearing marine animals for the

Russians. This practice also forced them to leave their traditional ways of life. An

estimated 80% of the Aleut population died from introduced diseases against

which they had no immunity, a crisis to the Aleut people and culture that is

unimaginable.

Russians moved onward to Kodiak, affecting the Koniags, then to Southeast

Alaska affecting the Tlingits who continued to wage war on the Russians into the

1850s. The diseases carried by the Russians traveled to Alaska Native people well

beyond the areas occupied by the Russians. Between loss of population due to

disease, loss of traditional hunting patterns, and moving into more permanent

settlements, traditional Alaska Native justice systems were eroding along with

Native cultures.

In 1867, U.S. Secretary of State William Seward made the deal to purchase

Russia’s claim to Alaska for $7.2 million, proclaimed by the Treaty of Cession. The

Treaty contains the first written legal reference to Alaska Native people. The Treaty

classified Alaska Natives into ‘civilized groups’ which were to be regular citizens of

5

the United States with no special relationship, and the rest were recognized as

‘uncivilized groups’ which were to be subject to federal Indian law. This confusing

classification of Alaska Natives in the Treaty of Cessions fueled much debate later

in courts and other forums over the status of Alaska Native people in the years to

come. Without a special political relationship to the federal government, Alaska

Natives would have no aboriginal claim to land and resources under the Doctrine

of Discovery, receive no special federal services under the trust responsibility of

the federal government, nor have tribal status with the government-to-government

relationship needed to operate tribal governments and justice systems.

Early Relationship between Alaska Tribes and the Federal Government

When the United States purchased Alaska in 1867, the country was still busy

recovering from the ravages of the Civil War. The tone at the time towards

American Indians was to assimilate them primarily through boarding schools and

allotting Indian lands to individuals. Hundreds of treaties with the Indians had been

produced, reservations created, major decisions about Indian tribes made by the

U.S. Supreme Court, and several acts of Congress passed. Indian tribes had

endured persecution through wars, disease, and removal from their homelands.

The tribes were in the process of losing their land base through the General

Allotment Act (also known as the Dawes Act) which divided up Indian lands by

allotting it to individual Indians, and then ‘surplussing’ the remainder by selling it to

non-Indians. The General Allotment Act resulted in a net loss of 90 million acres of

Indian land, an area the size of California. When the U.S. purchased Alaska, all

the land went into the ‘public domain.’ Transfer of land to private individuals,

associations, tribes and designation of land for specific public purposes required

future congressional action.

At first there was a relatively small federal presence in the Alaska territory and little

attention paid to potential aboriginal claims, political status of Alaska Natives, and

their special relationship to the federal government. Congress terminated treaty

6

making with the Indians in 1871, therefore no treaties were made with Alaska

Native people. The passage of the first Organic Act in 1884 created the District of

Alaska and established a District Court. The Act provided for a judge, clerk,

several commissioners, and a marshal with four deputies. This court system was

to enforce the applicable laws of the State of Oregon. The Act also set up a land

district which provided that “the Indians and other persons in said district shall not

be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or

now claimed by them, but the terms of which such persons may acquire title to

such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress.” The Act charged the

Secretary of Interior with the responsibility of educating the school age children of

Alaska, regardless of race. During these early years no distinction between Native

and non-Native residents of the territory was made in terms of service delivery.

Missionary-educator Sheldon Jackson was appointed as the first general agent for

education in Alaska in 1885. Under Jackson’s leadership, the Interior Department

made contracts with various missionary associations, giving them jurisdiction over

education in Alaska. A network of Native village schools was developed by these

associations, later to be run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs until well after

Statehood. These village schools were notorious for prohibiting the speaking of the

Native languages and geared toward assimilating and westernizing the Alaska

Native people. The affect of these schools in the loss of Alaska Native languages

and damage to the Native cultures was enormous.

In addition to the village schools, the Interior Department established the Native

reindeer industry, extended medical care specifically for Alaska Native people,

and established village cooperative stores, sawmills, and salmon canneries.

Additionally, some 150 Indian reserves were created for education, economic

development, community development, and health. This was the political

relationship that was needed for the future settlement of aboriginal claims and

the existence of federally recognized tribes in Alaska.

7

In the 1890s, the Klondike Gold Rush brought people to Alaska by droves, as

well as epidemics that followed, wiping out entire Native villages in some cases.

The trauma of such a loss of people and its effects on the Alaska Native culture

is almost incomprehensible. The Gold Rush also brought an increased demand

for land so Congress began the process of moving land into private ownership.

In 1891 Congress enacted the Alaska Townsite Act which provided a mechanism

for non-Natives to get land in the larger settlements in Alaska. At that time

Congress also opened land for trade and manufacturing sites, authorized setting

aside land for timber reserves, and established the 86,000 acre Metlakatla Indian

Reservation.

Like the Indian tribes in the Lower 48, Alaska Native people, their culture and

traditions were in jeopardy at the turn of the 20th century. By the late 1800s,

whaling ships had almost killed off both the whale and walrus populations

causing widespread starvation in Alaska’s costal communities; animal

populations in other parts of Alaska on which people depended for subsistence

were facing devastation as well. Villages were decimated by introduced

diseases, including epidemics of influenza, diphtheria, chicken pox, measles,

and tuberculosis. Schools prohibited speaking the Native language, the

traditional spiritual beliefs were repressed, and dances and other cultural

practices were denounced as pagan and sinful by the new Christian religion.

Names were changed to English names and alcohol was introduced. The

impacts on Alaska Native culture were tremendous, and traditional ways of self-

governance and traditional justice systems were damaged.

Turn of the 20th Century

In 1900, Congress passed the Civil Code of Alaska, creating more judicial

districts within the territory. James Wickersham was appointed as Judge for the

gigantic Third Judicial District based in Eagle, the first Judge to sit in the Interior

of Alaska. Judge Wickersham traveled extensively by boat and dog sled

8

throughout Alaska stopping at Native camps, listening to stories and learning

about Native history. Judge Wickersham made key decisions in regards to

Alaska Native land claims, and also went on to serve as Alaska’s delegate to

Congress. Wickersham was instrumental in the passage of the Organic Act of

1912 turning the District of Alaska into a U.S. Territory. The new Territory of Alaska

had an elected legislature, although the governor remained appointed by the

President. Wickersham also pushed for the establishment of the Alaska

Agriculture College and School of Mines (now the University of Alaska), McKinley

Park (now Denali National Park), the Alaska Railroad, and the Alaska Native

Townsite Act.

With the stream of outsiders coming into Alaska, demand and competition for

land continued to increase. Churches sought land and acquired it through the

Missions Act of 1900, which allowed a religious denomination to acquire up to

one square mile of land in Alaska. Disputes over land, particularly between

miners, resource developers, and Alaska Native people arose. A string of court

cases concerning Alaska Native land rights began, and continued up to the

settlement of the Alaska Native Claims Act in 1971. There were contradictory

decisions in these court cases, but two early cases in particular held that non-

Natives could not acquire land without the consent of the federal government. In

other words, Alaska Native people had an aboriginal claim to land that only the

U.S. government could settle. The first such case, United States v. Berrigan

(1905) was heard by Judge James Wickersham, and involved a dispute over

land near Delta Junction. The second was United States v. Cadzow (1914),

involving a land dispute near Fort Yukon.

Congress passed several Acts in the early part of the 20th century specifically

affecting Alaska Native people. The Nelson Act in 1905 legislatively established a

separate system of education for Alaska Natives, giving the BIA nearly exclusive

control over Alaska Native education until well after Alaska Statehood. In 1906,

Congress adopted the first land grant to Alaska Native people through Alaska

9

Native Allotment Act which entitled Alaska Natives to restricted land entitlements of

up to 160 acres of unappropriated, non-mineral land.

From the early twentieth century through the 1950s, village councils played a major

role in resolving disputes in bush Alaska. The village council form of tribal

government was primarily set up by missionaries and teachers. According to

studies by Hippler and Conn, the councils were composed of Native men and

women, and commonly acted by consensus. Councils heard complaints, lectured

wrongdoers, and occasionally reinforced their decisions by invoking the authority of

the church and the United States. Rather than taking punitive measures, council

actions were often directed towards an admission of wrong and a promise to

correct conduct in order to live more compatibly with other villagers. The village

councils were successful in their administration of justice because they avoided the

confrontational posture of trials, allowed for group decisions in which no single

individual had to take the responsibility, and found solutions for misbehavior which

were models of correction and deterrence. Although they operated on an unclear

legal basis, village councils came to be supported by the federal Marshalls, the

U.S. legal entity that was charged with enforcing law in the Alaska territory. Federal

lay judges and commissioners were appointed to serve in the larger Alaska

settlements. But likely due to lack of financial and infrastructure support, village

councils played a major role in resolving judicial disputes.

Although some Lower 48 Indians became citizens of the United States prior to

1924, the majority were not citizens. The Alaska Territorial Legislature offered

Alaskan citizenship to Alaska Native people with a 1915 enabling act. Congress

passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granting all American Indians and

Alaska Native people citizenship in the United States. In the Act Congress

provided that: “The granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or

otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.” With that, Alaska

Native people were clearly citizens of the United States, and any rights to

aboriginal claims to land were preserved.

10

Congress passed the second land grant to Alaska Natives through the 1926

Alaska Native Townsite Act designed to give Alaska Natives small land parcels

under their homes in villages in a restricted status. Neither the 1906 Alaska Native

Allotment Act ,nor the 1926 Alaska Native Townsite Act, were a settlement of the

much larger aboriginal claim to land in Alaska, but today, both Native allotments

and restricted Alaska Native townsite lands are likely Indian country for the

purpose of tribal jurisdiction because of their trust and restricted status. Both the

Alaska Native Allotment Act and the Alaska Native Townsite Act were terminated

in the 1970s by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) ending the

creation of new Alaska Native Townsites and Native allotments without a specific

exception by Congress.

In 1934 Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act IRA (also known as the

Wheeler-Howard Act or the Indian New Deal), in the spirit of attempting to

improve conditions on the reservations and to stop the loss of Indian lands in the

Lower 48 states. The Act was not fully applicable to Alaska tribes because it was

geared more toward Indian reservations and few Alaska Native villages were

thought to be located on reservations at that time. In 1936, Congress corrected this

oversight with an amendment to the IRA that allowed all Alaska Native villages to

organize their tribal governments under it. By 1941, thirty-eight Alaska Native

groups had organized under the IRA, and today about one third of the 231

federally recognized tribes in Alaska are organized under the IRA.

All the IRA tribes in Alaska have constitutions that went through a special federal

election process through the Secretary of Interior. Most all of the remaining

federally recognized tribes in Alaska also have constitutions, which went through

their own internal processes to adopt. All the Alaska tribal constitutions generally or

specifically allow the tribal councils to establish tribal courts, but very few have

tribal court structures and procedures outlined in the constitutions. For all practical

11

purposes, both the IRA and non-IRA tribes in Alaska have the same powers and

are equally recognized by the federal government.

In the Lower 48, it is said that the ‘modern’ tribal court systems began with the

passage of the IRA which encouraged the establishment of constitutional forms

of tribal governments with tribally controlled judicial systems. In Alaska, village

councils had already been formed and often used as dispute resolution bodies.

After the application of the IRA to Alaska, the BIA encouraged tribal court activity

through tribal ordinance by the village councils. This was largely the form of local

justice in Alaska villages until changes brought by Statehood. In Alaska, it is

probably more appropriate to say that the era of ‘modern’ tribal courts began

much later, stimulated by the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978.

In the 1940s, the federal government’s primary concern was World War II. A

tremendous number of both Native and non-Native Alaskans were enlisted into the

military, and Alaska’s mineral and fishing resources were heavily exploited. Aside

from the effects the entire United States felt from this war, Alaska tribes were

particularly affected by the removal of the Aleut people from the Pribilof Islands,

and the increased access to Alaska by the construction of the Alaska Highway.

The Native languages and culture were still being suppressed by the BIA schools

which were fully functioning at this time.

In 1948, Congress passed a statute defining Indian country, the territorial area

over which a tribe has jurisdiction. The language reads: "Except as otherwise

provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term 'Indian Country,' as

used in this chapter {18 USC Sec. 1151 et. seq.}, means (a) all land within the

limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States

Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-

of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities

within the borders of the United States whether within the original or

subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits

12

of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been

extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same." At this time

there were reservations and reserves in Alaska, many Indian allotments, and

most Native villages were probably considered ‘dependent Indian communities.’

But there was a long path ahead leading to the settlement of aboriginal claims,

the questions over the existence of tribes after the settlement, and then the

deliberations over what jurisdiction the tribes would have. Whether or not there is

Indian country in Alaska was to be subject to much debate into the future.

1950s : Termination Era

In terms of federal Indian policy, the 1950s are called the ‘termination era’ as

Congress adopted polices aimed at terminating federal obligations to tribes. The

three main tools the federal government used to accomplish this were the

relocation program, introducing State jurisdiction into Indian country through

Public Law 280 (P.L. 280), and actual termination of some tribes. Alaska

experienced the relocation of many Alaska Native people to cities in the Lower 48,

and also the application of Public Law 280.

In response to lack of Alaska territorial jurisdiction over a criminal case within the

jurisdiction of the Tyonek tribal government in 1958, Congress applied Public Law

280 to Alaska upon Alaska Statehood in 1959. Basically, P. L. 280 extends state

criminal and some civil jurisdiction into Indian country. At that time, Alaska Native

aboriginal claims to land had not been settled, so Indian country would likely have

been Native allotments, restricted Alaska Native townsites, reservations and

reserves which numbered over 150, and dependent Indian communities.

A long lived effect of Public Law 280 on Alaska tribal courts was the way the

State of Alaska interpreted this law for years after it was applied to Alaska. There

were a series of Alaska court rulings which basically held that even if there were

tribes in Alaska, P. L. 280 terminated tribal jurisdiction that they had. Tribal

13

advocates took the position that P.L. 280 extended state criminal and some state

civil jurisdiction into Indian country creating concurrent state-tribal jurisdiction, and

tribal jurisdiction was not terminated. Over time, the Alaska state system is

agreeing. While Public Law 280 extends state criminal jurisdiction and some civil

jurisdiction into Indian country, there are questions about the existence of Indian

country in Alaska, and therefore what the practical meaning Public Law 280

actually has.

A second effect of Public Law 280 is a policy by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to not

fund tribal courts in states where Public Law 280 applies. This leaves Alaska tribal

courts few revenue streams to operate under. There are limited grant opportunities

available through the Department of Justice which cannot be counted on for on-

going funding. Self-governance dollars are also limited, but tribes may use some to

fund their courts. Or, tribes may use self-generated dollars. Most tribal courts in

Alaska operate their courts on a volunteer basis, and/or using existing resources

from other programs and services. For example, most tribes add the duty of tribal

court clerk to an existing tribal staff position. Many tribes give judges a small

stipend for hearing cases.

Alaska Statehood brought very significant changes to bush justice, governance,

and land ownership patterns in Alaska. The Act itself preserved the status quo on

aboriginal title, mentioning that the federal government had the right to settle any

aboriginal claims to lands and resources that may be held by Alaska Natives. But

the State of Alaska’s rights to land and the actual selection of it were a main

stimulus for filing suit to prevent it and finally settling the aboriginal claim in 1971.

With Statehood, city councils were formed in many places, shifting power from the

village councils. Federal commissioners and marshals were replaced with state lay

judges or magistrates who were appointed by the Alaska Court System. In the

villages where magistrates were stationed, the role of the village councils in

dispute resolution was greatly reduced. The single judge system was much more

14

formal, and lacked the consensus approach taken by the village councils. Sadie

Brower Neakok from Point Barrow was one of the more successful magistrates,

who worked hard to make the magistrate system work for her people. She held

court in her home kitchen when she first started as a magistrate in 1960, and

continued her work for the next 20 years.

1960s : Civil Rights Era

The 1960s was an era of civil rights throughout the Nation, and Indian country was

no exception. Civil rights protests were occurring across the country and the age of

identity politics blossomed. The United States Constitution – Bill of Rights, does

not apply to the activity of Indian tribes, so in the early 1960s, Congress began

seven years of hearings concerning claims that tribal courts in the Lower 48 did

not provide basic due process rights to Indian criminal defendants. In response,

Congress passed the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) in 1968 which applies to all

tribal courts throughout the country. The ICRA established a basic Bill of Rights

for persons subject to the jurisdiction of Indian tribes. On one hand it reaffirmed

judicial powers of tribal self-government, but on the other, it placed certain

standards on tribal courts while providing no funding to enable tribes to

restructure or improve their court systems.

At the heart of the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) is the obligation of tribes to

provide a basic fundamental fairness through due process and equal protection

in tribal operations. It is important to know that legislative history describes

Congress’ intent that the meanings of these terms be tribal meanings rather than

state or federal interpretations of these terms. The ICRA basically requires

notification of hearings, the opportunity to be heard, and fair hearings with

consistent application of tribal law. The ICRA affects tribal court procedures

particularly in the area of criminal jurisdiction. It requires basic due process rights

for defendants, mandates a jury trial system if the defendant wants it for offenses

with potential jail penalties, authorizes defendants in criminal proceedings to use

15

lawyers at their own expense, and requires that laws be applied equally to all

persons. It also limited tribal court sentencing to 6 months in jail and/or a $500

fine upon conviction for any one offense. This limit was later raised to 1 year in

jail and/or $5,000, and will likely continue to be raised by Congress as the

severity of court cases that tribal courts handle increases.

By the late 1960s, Congress embraced a policy of promoting tribal self-

government and increased funding for tribal court operations through the Bureau

of Indian Affairs. However, many Lower 48 tribal courts remained under-funded

and under-staffed, and a policy of not funding tribal courts in P.L. 280 states

evolved. Most tribes lacked resources to make procedural changes required by

the Indian Civil Rights Act and expanded tribal jurisdiction. In Alaska, bush

justice was either being addressed by state courts, village councils or Native

panels, or, not at all.

In 1969 the National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA) was

formed for the purpose of improving tribal court operations. The members of this

organization are primarily tribal judges, justices and peacemakers serving in

tribal justice systems. Alaska tribes were given their own regional representation

in the organization in the year 2000.

The civil rights movement of the 1960s was also the climate for Alaska Native

people who were actively pushing for the settlement of aboriginal claims for land

and resources. The key factors pushing the movement were the State’s selection

of valuable lands, the proposed construction of the Rampart Dam which would

have flooded much of the Yukon river drainage, a proposal to use nuclear bombs

to create a harbor in Point Hope (Project Chariot), and finally confirmation that

there were vast oil reserves on the North Slope. Secretary of Interior Morris Udall

froze land transactions in Alaska in 1966 after Alaska Natives filed a law suit

over their claims.

16

1970s : Self-Determination

During the 1970s, Congress passed several pieces of significant Indian

legislation and the Supreme Court heard an abundance of Indian cases. The

most significant legislation for Alaska Native people was the settlement of the

aboriginal land claims through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA)

in 1971, a claim to ancient homelands which had been unresolved for over 100

years. Although there were differences of opinion over how the claims should be

settled, the unique settlement through ANCSA was the end of the disputes over

whether or not Alaska tribes had aboriginal claims to land and resources. It was

also the beginning of a new era for Alaska Native people, as 44 million acres of

land and nearly 1 billion dollars was placed under Alaska Native regional and

village for–profit corporations, thrusting Alaska Native people into management

positions in the complex world of profit-making businesses. The 44 million acres

of land was placed into an elaborate ownership of surface and subsurface rights

and checkerboard patterns surrounding the villages.

After ANSCA was enacted, there were challenges in court over whether or not

tribes in Alaska still existed. Eventually, the Department of Interior basically

settled the matter by publishing the names of all the tribes in Alaska on their list

of federally recognized tribes in 1993, and Congress confirmed the list in 1994.

However, ANSCA left questions about tribal jurisdiction since the tribes, for the

most part, were the same people as the corporation shareholders, but did not

receive the land under ANSCA. Tribal jurisdiction is in part linked to ‘Indian

country,’ the territorial area over which tribes have jurisdiction, and basically

tribes have more jurisdiction in ‘Indian country’ than outside of it.

Although the Act ‘settled’ aboriginal land claims with the tribes in Alaska, it did

not adequately address aboriginal claims for hunting and fishing, since the land

received by the Alaska Native people through ANCSA was not large enough to

accommodate the hunting and fishing needs. An attempt to address this was

17

made nine years later when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

(ANILCA) was enacted. Title VIII of ANILCA gives some preference for rural

citizens of Alaska for subsistence hunting and fishing. Much controversy has

surrounded this provision as the state contends it conflicts with the state

constitution, and Alaska Native people argue that the provision does not

adequately protect their hunting and fishing needs. Without Indian country, the

tribes lack the jurisdiction to regulate hunting and fishing seasons and bag limits.

In 1975, the federal government took a major step towards the policy of Indian

self-determination with the passage of Public Law 83-638, the Indian Self-

Determination and Education Assistance Act. Through this Act, tribal governments

are able to receive funds through the Departments of Interior, and Health and

Human Services, to deliver their own governmental and health care services. In

Alaska many Native non-profit organizations were formed or strengthened to

receive these dollars. Numerous tribes in Alaska receive these dollars on their

own through 638 contracts, or through compacting. Most of the regional non-profit

organizations assist tribes with the development and operation of their tribal courts.

Three significant U.S. Supreme cases in the 1970s affecting tribal court

jurisdiction generally throughout the United States were: Oliphant v. Suquamish

(1978), U.S. v. Wheeler (1978), and Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978). A

significant setback for tribal jurisdiction was established by the decision of the

Supreme Court in the Oliphant case. The Court ruled that Indian tribes have no

inherent power to prosecute and punish non-Indians who commit crimes on

Indian reservations, unless the tribe has been granted such power in a treaty,

agreement, or act of Congress. There is no law that specifically removed the

tribal power to assert criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, however, the

Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of this power is “inconsistent with the

status of Indian tribes.” For the first time, the Supreme Court declared that a

fundamental tribal power could be extinguished by implication. After the Oliphant

case, many tribes across the country began a process to decriminalize their

18

codes, meaning that they handle cases as civil cases instead of criminal cases,

since tribal governments were left without criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives.

Shortly after the startling Oliphant decision, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in

U.S. v. Wheeler that helped to reaffirm the sovereign nature of Indian tribes. This

case held that because Indian tribal courts and federal courts derive their

authority from separate sovereigns, the double jeopardy clause of the U.S.

Constitution does not prohibit prosecution in federal court of an Indian defendant

already tried and sentenced for the same offense in tribal court. The case arose

on the Navajo reservation and involved a crime committed by a Navajo tribal

member.

A positive note for tribal sovereignty was struck in the last major Indian law

decision by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez.

The case involved a Santa Clara Pueblo woman who brought suit against tribal

officials because the Tribe denied tribal enrollment to children of female

members who marry nonmembers, but not to children of male members who

marry nonmembers. Ms. Martinez argued that the difference in treatment

between male and female members of the Tribe violated the equal protection

requirement of the Indian Civil Rights Act. In this case, however, the United

States Supreme Court decided that federal courts should not interpret what the

meaning of equal protection is for tribes.

The Court held in the Martinez case that the Indian Civil Rights Act does not

grant federal courts the power to decide tribal civil rights cases, except those

involving criminal matters where a release from custody is sought. In those

cases, a writ of habeas corpus challenging an allegedly unlawful imprisonment is

the procedural tool. The Court reasoned that to impose standards of U.S.

constitutional law would cause “unnecessary intrusions on tribal governments”

and would threaten a tribe’s ability to “maintain itself as a culturally and politically

distinct entity.” Tribal courts were identified as the only appropriate forum for

19

applying such ICRA principles as equal protection and due process in a manner

consistent with traditional Indian values and customs.

The passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978 marked a new era

in tribal court development in Alaska. Prior to the passage of ICWA, one in four

Indian children were taken out of their Indian homes and placed with foster

homes or institutions, most of which were non-Native. The purpose of the Act is

to preserve and strengthen Indian families and Indian culture by affirming

existing tribal authority to handle child protection cases, and by setting Native

placement preference standards when child custody proceedings are in state

courts. Shortly after the passage of the ICWA, tribes in Alaska re-organized their

traditional tribal courts which had largely fallen into disuse, and began hearing

child custody and protection cases. Tribes did this in spite of the lack of tribal

recognition by the State of Alaska. Today, children’s cases are the most

common tribal court cases in Alaska, particularly in the Interior where about half

of all children who are in custody are in tribal custody.

1980s : Challenges and Accomplishments

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was passed by Congress in

1980 setting aside major tracks of Alaska land for National Parks, Preserves, and

Wildlife Refuges. Title 8 of that Act was an attempt to address the hunting and

fishing rights portion of Alaska Native aboriginal claims that ANCSA failed to

adequately address. The ‘subsistence’ scenario the Act set up became subject to

much controversy, lawsuits, and eventually a bifurcated system of wildlife

management between the State of Alaska and the federal government. The matter

is currently undergoing complete federal review and new efforts in the Alaska

Native community are underway to re-address Native subsistence, which is the

Alaska Native way of life.

20

The 1980s was a decade when the existence of tribes in Alaska was challenged

by the State of Alaska, and even on the federal front, Alaska tribes were listed as

“Alaska Native Entities” on the list of federally recognized tribes. Alaska tribes were

very active in the 1980s in asserting their existence and jurisdiction through their

tribal governments and courts. Tribal court activity picked up tremendously as a

result of the Indian Child Welfare Act, new IRA constitutions were being sought,

tribal alcohol ordinances were published in the Federal Register, battles were

being waged in federal and state court, and active efforts were undertaken to

include Alaska tribes in any federal legislation affecting tribes in the country.

The tribes and Native organizations were also very active in the 1980s in

advocating for the so-called ‘1991 amendments,’ which made changes to the

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in preventing the stocks from going onto the

open market in the year 1991. Although a mechanism to make it easier to transfer

land from Native corporations to tribes did not make it into the 1991 amendments,

transfers of land to tribes from corporations took place. Tribes also acquired land

through transfers from cities, purchases, gifts, and from the Alaska Native

Townsite program in villages where cities did not form.

In the 1980s, several cases regarding the existence and rights of Alaska tribes

were heard in the Alaska court system with both favorable and unfavorable

rulings for Alaska Natives. In 1988, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that there

were no tribes in Alaska except for Metlakatla and perhaps a few others in Stevens v. Alaska Management & Planning. However, in the following year,

1989, the Court made a favorable ruling for Alaska tribes in the Nome Eskimo

Community case. In that case, the Court ruled that land cannot be taken away

without tribal consent if the village is organized under the Indian Reorganization

Act. The Alaska Supreme Court recognized the Indian Reorganization Act and

the protection it gives for land, but still did not recognize tribal status for Alaska

tribes in this case.

21

On the national front, U.S. Supreme Court cases were decided during the 1980s

affecting tribal courts throughout the country. In 1981, the Supreme Court

acknowledged that tribal courts have inherent civil authority, even over actions of

non-Indians, that affect tribal interests such as the political integrity, economic

security, and health or welfare of the tribes in Montana v. United States. Through

this case, the Supreme Court offered guidelines for gaining federal approval of

the exercise of tribal court civil jurisdiction, but also put tribes in a defensive

position in potentially having to prove effects of non-Native actions on the tribes.

This case supports the notion that Alaska tribal courts have civil jurisdiction over

activities when the political integrity, economic security, and health or welfare of

the tribes is affected.

In 1985, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether or not non-

Natives may challenge tribal jurisdiction in federal courts in National Farmers

Union Insurance Co. v. Crow Tribe of Indians. In this case, the Court held that

non-Indians who challenge a tribe’s jurisdiction must first raise the issue in tribal

court and exhaust tribal appellate procedures before raising the issue in a

federal court. In other words, once a case is filed in tribal court it must be heard

by that court, and then by a tribal appellate court before it can be taken to a

federal or state court to challenge tribal authority or procedures.

The activities and conflicts between the tribes and the State of Alaska in the

1980s paved the way for certified recognition of Alaska tribes in the 1990s.

1990s : Tribal Recognition

Although recognition of Indian tribes is a federal decision, state governors are in

control of all the state agencies that interface with tribes such as the State

Troopers, Office of Children’s Services, and Bureau of Vital Statistics. Tribes find

more support for their governmental and judicial activities when state governors

recognize and support them. In Alaska, tribal recognition by governors varied

22

widely during the 1990s. In 1990, Governor Steve Cowper issued Administrative

Order 123, recognizing that there are tribes in Alaska, likely to be the same as

those communities recognized in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The

Order recognized the powers of tribes to be to regulate membership, to manage

internal affairs of the tribe, and any powers delegated to tribes by the federal

government such as through the Indian Child Welfare Act.

The next Governor, Walter J. Hickel, rescinded the Administrative Order 123. He

described Alaskans as ‘all one people,’ leaving no room for administrative

recognition of a special political status for Alaska Native people. The last

Governor in the 1990s, Tony Knowles, recognized the tribes and started a major

project called the ‘Millennium Agreement’ which was meant to be “a framework for

the establishment of lasting government-to-government relationships and an

implementation procedure to assure that such relationships are constructive and

meaningful and further enhance cooperation between the parties.” Knowles

however, was not supportive of some tribal powers for which Indian country

would be necessary. At the 1997 Tanana Chiefs Convention in Fairbanks,

Knowles spoke against the recognition of Indian country, especially the powers

of taxation and regulation of fish and game.

On the federal front, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Blatchford v.

Native Village of Noatak in 1991, holding that Noatak could not sue the State in

federal court for not giving revenue sharing to tribal councils. An important thing

to note about this case is that the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Noatak was a

tribe because it was organized under the Indian Reorganization Act, and that the

village of Circle (also involved in the case) was a tribe because it was named

under ANCSA. The U.S. Supreme Court looked at that issue and decided not to

make a new decision about that. This case helped pave the way to clarify federal

recognition of tribes a few years later.

23

In the last days of President H. W. Bush’s term (January 11, 1993), the

Department of Interior issued an opinion that tribes do exist in Alaska, but

ANCSA lands do not qualify as Indian country in a legal opinion titled:

‘Governmental Jurisdiction of Alaska Native Villages Over Land and Non-

members.’ This opinion is also known as the ‘Sansonetti Opinion.’ President Bill

Clinton replaced President Bush just days after the Sansonetti Opinion was

issued.

Clinton’s administration did not outright pull the Sansonetti Opinion but it did take

a significant step toward resolving the vagueness of federal recognition of tribes

the following fall. On October 21, 1993, during the term of Assistant Secretary of

Indian Affairs Ada Deer, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a list of

tribes in the United States eligible for services from the Department. Previous

DOI lists included Alaska tribes as tribal entities, which left the status of tribes

unclear. The 1993 list named the Alaska villages recognized under ANCSA as

tribes, and specifically stated that they have “all the immunities and privileges

available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their

government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the

responsibilities, powers, limitations and obligations of such tribes.”

The lengthy preamble to the list explicitly stated that: "The purpose of the current

publication is to publish an Alaska list of entities conforming to the intent of 25

C.F.R. Sec. 83.6(b) and to eliminate any doubt as to the Department's intention by

expressly and unequivocally acknowledging that the Department has determined

that the villages and regional tribes listed below are distinctly Native communities

and have the same status as tribes in the continuous 48 states...This list is

published to clarify that the villages and regional tribes listed below are not simply

eligible for services, or recognized as tribes for certain narrow purposes. Rather,

they have the same governmental status as other federally acknowledged Indian

tribes by virtue of their status as Indian tribes with a government-to-government

relationship with the United States; are entitled to the same protection, immunities,

24

and privileges as other acknowledged tribes; have the right, subject to general

principles of Federal Indian law, to exercise the same inherent and delegated

authorities available to other tribes; and are subject to the same limitations

imposed by law on other tribes." (Bureau of Indian Affairs, List of Indian Entities

Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau of

Indian Affairs, Oct. 1993). The preamble to the list went on to state that

“Inclusion on the list does not resolve the scope of powers of any particular tribe

over land or non-members,” and so the issue of tribal jurisdiction over ANCSA

lands as Indian country was not clarified.

Congress specifically confirmed the validity of the Department of Interior list

through passage of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994. The

Act defines the term ‘Indian tribe’ as meaning any Indian or Alaska Native tribe

that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe. The list

is to be published by the Department of Interior annually and the Department

cannot take a tribe off the list without an act of Congress. The only ways for a

tribe not on the list to become federally recognized are through an act of

Congress, a decision by a federal court, or by successfully going through the

lengthy and expensive acknowledgement process established by Department of

Interior regulation (25 CFR Part 83).

After this point, the debates between the Alaska tribes and the state and federal

governments primarily focused on tribal jurisdiction: How much jurisdiction do

Alaska tribes have? How does Public Law 280 affect Alaska tribes? How do the

federal Indian law statutes such as the Indian Child Welfare Act and Violence

Against Women Act apply? Is there Indian country in Alaska? Although tribes may

organize their governments, possess sovereign immunity, have special tax status,

and some civil jurisdiction without a territorial base, Indian country is vital for

authority to enforce activities such as exercising criminal jurisdiction, taxation, and

regulation of fish and game.

25

The federal and state court cases about Alaska tribes in the 1990s showed the

unfolding of tribal recognition and the beginning of clarification over tribal

jurisdiction. After the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Noatak case in 1991,

which did not clarify what powers the tribe might have, there were three more

significant federal cases concerning Alaska tribal status and jurisdiction in the

1990s: 1) Native Village of Venetie IRA Council v. State of Alaska (adoption

case), 2) Native Village of Tyonek v. Puckett (power to exclude case), and 3)

State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie (tax case).

The first Venetie case, the adoption case, involved both the Venetie and the Fort

Yukon Tribes and individual tribal members. The Native parties filed suit to

require the State of Alaska to recognize tribal court adoption decrees. The State

of Alaska argued that even if the villages involved had tribal status, Public Law

280 terminated tribal jurisdiction. The federal court ruled that Public Law 280

does not terminate tribal jurisdiction, but that it gives concurrent jurisdiction

between the tribes and State. The Court went on to say that the tribal status

question was settled by the Interior Departments publication of the list of

federally recognized tribes on October 21, 1993 for all tribes on the list. The

Court, however, ruled that the question of status for Alaska tribes prior to

October 21, 1993 was unanswered.

In Native Village of Tyonek, the federal court held that Tyonek is a tribe and went

on to say that the Interior Department’s list of recognized tribes was retroactive.

In other words, tribes on the list had tribal status prior to October 21, 1993. The

case put to rest the question of whether Tyonek and other Alaska tribes would be

required to factually prove their tribal status for events occurring before 1993.

The Venetie tax case is the most notorious federal case of the 1990s affecting

Alaska tribes. The basic question in the case ended up being whether or not the

land underlying the village of Venetie was Indian country or not. Venetie was

26

once a reservation created under the Indian Reorganization Act, but it was

terminated by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Native

corporations were formed under ANCSA and received land, but the corporations

transferred the land (1.2 million acres) to the Tribe which now owns it in fee

simple title. The Venetie Tribal Government tried to tax construction occurring in

the village, which requires a finding of Indian country status to do so.

After many years of various court hearings, the Venetie tax case was heard by

the United States Supreme Court in 1998. The Court held that the land in

question had gone through ANCSA and does not have Indian country status;

therefore, the Tribe could not impose a tax over entities doing business on their

lands. The case left the decision that land which has gone through the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act is no longer Indian country. However, the Venetie

tax case does not rule out the possibility of Indian country for Alaska Native

townsites and Native allotments, neither of which were issues in the case.

At the end of the 1990s, the Alaska Supreme Court recognized the existence of

federally recognized tribes in Alaska and their inherent powers of self-

government over members in a case called John v Baker (1999). The case was

an extreme departure from earlier Alaska Supreme Court decisions and strongly

supported tribal jurisdiction in domestic relations over tribal members regardless

of whether they occupy Indian country. The case involved a custody dispute

between members of two different tribes who sought and received a tribal court

determination of joint custody over their children. The father however, was

unhappy with the tribal court decision and sought sole custody over the children

by filing the same case in state court. After hearings at lower levels, the case

was eventually heard by the Alaska Supreme Court. The Court basically

overturned its earlier decisions about the non-existence of tribes in Alaska and

their jurisdiction, and decided that there are tribes in Alaska, tribal courts, and

tribal jurisdiction over child custody disputes even in the absence of Indian

27

country. In other words, tribal jurisdiction in Alaska is largely based on tribal

membership, making decisions regarding tribal members, and protecting the

health and safety of the tribe and tribal members.

The decision of the John v Baker case was greatly needed to further state

recognition of and cooperation with tribes in Alaska. The case removed a critical

roadblock in progressing towards this goal, and placed Alaska tribes in a much

better position to benefit from both federal and state recognition as they

progressed into the 21st century.

2000s : Refining Tribal Jurisdiction

In 2000, Alaska Governor Tony Knowles established the first statewide tribal-

state negotiations team to develop a tribal-state cooperative framework called

the Millennium Agreement. It was to be a step along the way of government-to-

government relations between tribes and the Alaska State government.

However, the second and third Alaska Governors in the 2000s, Frank Murkowski

and Sarah Palin, did not continue the work on, or seem to acknowledge the

Agreement.

The Alaska State Supreme Court further supported tribal recognition and

jurisdiction in August of 2001 in a case called C.R.H. The C.R.H. case involved

a child in need of aid who was eligible for tribal membership in both of the

villages of Nikolai and Chickaloon. Chickaloon intervened in the state ICWA case

before Nikolai, but later turned over their status as the ICWA tribe to Nikolai.

Nikolai then made a motion to have the case transferred to the Nikolai Edzeno

Tribal Court. In earlier cases concerning transferring jurisdiction under ICWA to

tribes, the Alaska Supreme Court had basically held that even if there were tribes

in Alaska, P.L. 280 terminated jurisdiction they might have. The State Supreme

Court reversed previous faulty reasoning in the C.R.H. case, and held that ICWA

28

cases in state court could be transferred to tribal courts, reversing earlier

Supreme Court decisions on this issue.

The following year, 2002, the Alaska Attorney General’s office issued an Opinion

interpreting the C.R.H. case which came to the conclusion that “state law now

recognizes that tribes in Alaska have authority over child custody matters

involving tribal children and need not petition the Secretary of the Interior to

reassume jurisdiction before exercising their authority.” However, in 2003, the

Alaska Supreme Court made a decision to deny ‘comity’ (recognition) of a tribal

court case in Selawik because the tribal court did not provide the parties due

process which means being notified of tribal court hearings, and an opportunity

to be heard in front of fair and impartial judges. At this point in time, the State of

Alaska basically recognized tribes, tribal courts, and their jurisdiction over child

custody matters involving tribal children as long as the tribal court provided due

process.

One of the inherent powers of a tribe is the power to banish a member to protect

the safety and welfare of the tribe. In 2003, an Alaska court supported this right

in a case called Native Village of Perryville v. Tague. In this case, the Court

affirmed the Village’s right to banish one of its members for violent behavior and

to have the state court and state troopers assist in enforcing its order. The Court

cited the John v. Baker case, and found that a tribe’s power to banish its

members derives from its inherent authority over “internal affairs.” However,

issues surrounding tribal protective orders continue to be litigated, and

cooperation in enforcement from state agencies is variable.

Following the election of Governor Frank Murkowski, Attorney General Greg

Renkes issued a new Opinion about tribes in 2004, which was an about-face

from the 2002 Opinion. The major points of the 2004 Opinion were that Alaska

State Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over Alaska Native child custody

proceedings unless the Department of Interior has approved an ICWA Section

29

1918 petition, or state court has transferred a case under 1911(b), and that tribes

that have not petitioned for reassumption have no authority to initiate child

custody proceedings in tribal court. The Opinion implies that the cultural adoption

regulation is the sole alternative to reassumption: “However, the state has long

ratified Indian adoptions that occur under tribal custom as a matter of equity

under state law. Nothing in C.R.H. or this Opinion should be construed as

changing this longstanding policy in any respect.” Although Alaska tribes

continued to initiate child custody and protection cases in tribal court after the

2004 Opinion was issued, they faced more resistance from the State in terms of

cooperation from state agencies.

The matter of tribal initiation of child protection cases continued to be litigated,

and in 2007, Superior Court Judge Tan issued a decision that Alaska Tribes

possess inherent power to hear cases involving member children in a case

called Tanana v. State of Alaska. The decision was appealed and continues to

be litigated. Similarly, in 2008, U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess ruled that the

Kaltag tribal court adoption orders are entitled to full faith and credit under the

Indian Child Welfare Act in Kaltag v. Jackson and the State filed an appeal of

that case. New cases involving the existence of tribal jurisdiction in child welfare

cases continued to be filed in 2009, and the litigation goes on.

By the end of the 2000s, the existence of federally recognized tribes in Alaska

clear, but a wide path of litigation over tribal jurisdiction is on-going. As much as

the executive branch of the Alaska State government protests the existence of

tribal jurisdiction, the judicial branch tends to confirm it, and is backed up by the

federal courts. In the meantime, many Alaska tribes continue to take care of their

members and children through tribal court activity as best they can, under the

guidance of modern tribal law and traditional values that have served them for

hundreds of generations.

30

Current Alaska Tribal Courts

Today, there are some 229 Alaska tribes on the Department of Interior list of

federally recognized tribes. Over half of these tribes are developing or have

active tribal courts. The types of cases that Alaska tribal courts address include

child custody, adoptions and guardianships, child protection, child support

enforcement, domestic violence, probate, alcohol violations, animal control,

environmental regulation, juvenile delinquency, juvenile status offences, cultural

protection, internal governmental disputes, property damage, property disputes,

trespass, misdemeanor offences, and fish and game/marine mammal protection.

Alaska tribal courts are organized under a range of structures, but most use a

panel of judges rather than a single judge to hear cases. The tribal council may

serve as the court, or a pool of judges created that may include some tribal

council members. There may be a body entirely separated from the council

established as the tribal court. The judges tend to be elders, council members,

and tribal members who are respected and well-suited to the job, but not

attorneys. Some tribes use the circle style sentencing format, which is an

increasing trend particularly for juvenile delinquency and status offence cases.

Although tribal courts have a wide range of independence in terms of structures

and procedures, they are all required to follow the due process guidance of the

Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which is similar to the United States Bill of Rights.

The fundamental elements of due process are notification of hearings, and an

opportunity to be heard in front of a fair and impartial tribunal. The tribes are not

required to provide due process in the same image as do the state or federal

courts. Many of the provisions of the Indian Civil Rights Act apply to courts

practicing criminal jurisdiction in cases where incarceration is a possibility. While

all tribes in Alaska are interested in exercising their judicial capacity to protect the

health and well-being of their tribal members, very few are interested in

31

incarcerating them. Alaska tribes are most interested in protecting people and

healing through treatment programs and cultural activities, and mending

relationships.

While court battles over tribal jurisdiction between the State of Alaska and tribes

are currently on-going, and will continue into the foreseeable future, rural Alaska is

one of the most dangerous places to live in the United States. The danger is

largely due to an alarming lack of adequate state law enforcement and justice

services, and cross cultural issues. More collaboration and cooperation between

the State of Alaska and Alaska’s tribal courts would go a long way as part of the

solution to rural Alaska’s judicial problems.

32

Bibliography

Books: Berger, Thomas R. Village Journey, The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission. Hill

and Wang, New York, 1985.

Blackman, Margaret B. Sadie Brower Neakok, An Inupiaq Woman. University of Washington

Press, Washington, 1989.

Case, David S., Voluck, David A., Alaska Natives and American Laws. 2nd ed, University of

Alaska Press, Alaska. 2002.

Cohen, Felix S., Newton, Nell Jessup Editor-in-Chief. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law.

ed, Michie, Ohio, 2005.

Gallagher, Hugh Gregory. Etok, A Story of Eskimo Power. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1974.

Getches, David H., Wilkinson, Charles F., Williams, Robert A. Jr. Cases and Materials on Federal

Indian Law. 5th ed., Thompson West Publishing, St. Paul, MN, 2005.

Goldberg-Ambrose, Carole. Planting Tail Feathers: Tribal Survival and Public Law 280. American

Indian Studies Center, Los Angeles. 1997.

Hensley, William L. Iggiagruk. Fifty Miles from Tomorrow. Sarah Crichton Books, New York, 2009

Napoleon, Harold. Yuuyaraq: The Way of the Human Being. Alaska Native Knowledge Network,

Alaska, 2005.

Pevar, Stephen L. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. 3rd ed, New York University Press, New York,

2004.

Torrey, Barbara Boyle. Slaves of the Harvest. TDX Corporation, Alaska 1978.

Wilkinson, Charles, American Indian Resources Institute. Indian Tribes as Sovereign

Governments. 2nd ed. AIRI Press, Oakland, CA, 2004.

33

Langdon, Steve J. The Native People of Alaska. 4th ed., Greatland Graphics, Anchorage, Alaska,

2002.

Vanstone, James W. Athapaskan Adaptations, Hunters and fishermen of the Subarctic Forests.

Harlan Davidson, Inc., Illinois, 1974

Films: Hollingsworth, Susan, and Jaeger, Lisa: Tribal Court Clerks, The Backbone of Tribal Justice

Systems. 35 minute DVD on tribal court administration, available from Tanana Chiefs Conference,

122 First Avenue, Fairbanks, AK, 99701, 2008.

Jaeger, Lisa, and Hollingsworth, Susan. Tribal Courts, Opportunities for Healing. 45 minute DVD

on tribal courts in Alaska, available from Tanana Chiefs Conference, 122 First Avenue, Fairbanks,

AK, 99701, 2004.

Jaeger, Lisa. Tribal Nations, The Story of Federal Indian Law. 60 minute DVD on federal Indian

law, Tanana Chiefs Conference, available from Amazon.com, 2006.

Handbooks, Reports: A Directory of Dispute Resolution in Alaska Outside Federal and State Courts. Alaska Judicial

Council, Anchorage, AK. Available online at http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/rjdir99.pdf, 1999.

Initial Report and Recommendations of the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement

Commission, Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission, Alaska. Available online at

: http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/press/040606-ARJLEC-report.pdf , 2006

Jaeger, Lisa. Tribal Court Development, Alaska Tribes, 3rd ed, Tanana Chiefs Conference,

Fairbanks, AK, available online at http://thorpe.ou.edu/Alaska.html, 2002.

Articles and Papers: Hippler, Arthur E., and Stephen Conn. “The Village Council and Its Offspring: A Reform for Bush

Justice.” UCLS-Alaska Law Review, vol. 5, no. 1:22 – 57. 1975.

Mertz, Douglas K. “A Primer on Alaska Native Sovereignty.” Article, available online at

http://www.alaska.net/~dkmertz/natlaw.htm, 1991.

34

Strommer, Geoffrey, and Osborne, Stephen. “ ‘Indian Country’ and the Nature and Scope of Tribal

Self-Government in Alaska.” Alaska Law Review, available online at

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?22+Alaska+L.+Rev.+1, 2005.

Websites: Alaska Native Knowledge Network

http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/index.html

Alaskool Central

http://www.alaskool.org/

American Indian Policy Center

http://www.airpi.org/

National Congress of American Indians

http://www.ncai.org/

National Indian Child Welfare Association

http://www.nicwa.org/

National Tribal Justice Resource Center

http://www.tribalresourcecenter.org/

Native American Law and Digitization Project:

http://thorpe.ou.edu/

Native American Law Library:

http://www.narf.org/nill/index.htm

Native American Rights Fund (NARF)

http://www.narf.org/

Tanana Chiefs Conference

http://www.tananachiefs.org/tribal/tribal_govt.shtml

Tribal Court Clearing House

35

http://www.tribal-institute.org/

University of Alaska, Anchorage, Justice Center

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/rlinks/natives/indianlaw.html

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Statehood_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wickersham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act